[Macros]

smokers pay a ball more tax than non smokers (tax on fags goes up annually)
Same with drinkers, are we going to say people who drink shouldn't get medical care too?

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Macros, on 26 March 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

smokers pay a ball more tax than non smokers (tax on fags goes up annually)
Same with drinkers, are we going to say people who drink shouldn't get medical care too?

There have been a few studies done on the impact of smoking on Canadian government revenues. The government revenue gain from taxes paid on smokes combined with the lower average length of drawing on the Canadian Pension Plan (due to lower life expectancy) is greater than the cost of healthcare for diseases caused by smoking. So smokers should get thier healthcare, because they paid for it. Drinkers may have the same scenario, I have no idea.

If those against vaccination kicked in a bit extra to cover the national healthcare expenses, I would be happy to see them get otherwise free medical treatment for those illnesses.

edit: Though I will still be miffed about them potentially putting others in harms way for no reason.

This post has been edited by Gwynn ap Nudd: 27 March 2014 - 12:33 AM

[Abyss]

Gwynn ap Nudd, on 27 March 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

There have been a few studies done on the impact of smoking on Canadian government revenues. The government revenue gain from taxes paid on smokes combined with the lower average length of drawing on the Canadian Pension Plan (due to lower life expectancy) is greater than the cost of healthcare for diseases caused by smoking. So smokers should get thier healthcare, because they paid for it...

That is a fascinating stat I was not aware of.If we were continuing this debate I'd throw in illegal smokes, impact on non smokers and a few other points, but I'm feeling mellow.

[Tiste Simeon]

Illuyankas, on 26 March 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

Man, someone getting cancer being left to fend for themselves is the least Christian thing I've ever seen you say, Tiste. That's not even mentioning all the people who smoked back when we didn't know all the side effects, all the kids brought up in smoking houses who didn't know better, or those who smoked and quit and then come down with something years later, just to name a few examples.

You know what you're absolutely right and I'm not very proud of saying it. I'm also not even sure how much I believe it - e.g. If a friend of mine who was a smoker got cancer I would never stand around self righteously proclaiming it to be their fault... I was just thinking about how there is so little funding for so many issues in the NHS & a lot of the time people who really need it can't get the help they need, let alone the people who should in theory know better who are ruining their own lives. It is a tough subject & a good debate, and as someone said it isn't the job of health care professionals to make judgement calls like that...

[Gothos]

Tiste Brent Not Abyss Weeks Simeon, on 26 March 2014 - 06:53 PM, said:

I dunno I think there is enough education freely available out there that people know exactly what they're doing when they smoke. When the inevitable happens the only person they have to blame is themselves. I agree with Abyss in that I don't think they should be covered by state insurance or whatever. E.g. In this country their treatment should not be on the NHS. In the same way fat people shouldn't get liposuction on the NHS and boob jobs should be through private doctors and private doctors only.

Have you seen the tax on smokes? Bought and paid for in advance. In any case, education doesn't quite cut it really, as it's hard for the human brain to properly process something "40 years from now". We're still very much animals.
Despite that, smoking has been on the decline for years now. It seems all that campaigning and bans on smoking are working, it's just a gradual process that you might not see as a non-smoker. Soaring prices, continuous retreat of smoking from public spaces, health education, availability of alternative sources of nicotine - I'd say the amount of people I know that smoke regularly has dropped 2-3 times over the past 15 years. It's working, it's just not immediate, and for many people it may be too late to change the course anyway.




Then there's the lung and throat cancer patients who have never in their life smoked a cigarette...

[Solidsnape]

Tiste Brent Not Abyss Weeks Simeon, on 27 March 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

Illuyankas, on 26 March 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

Man, someone getting cancer being left to fend for themselves is the least Christian thing I've ever seen you say, Tiste. That's not even mentioning all the people who smoked back when we didn't know all the side effects, all the kids brought up in smoking houses who didn't know better, or those who smoked and quit and then come down with something years later, just to name a few examples.

You know what you're absolutely right and I'm not very proud of saying it. I'm also not even sure how much I believe it - e.g. If a friend of mine who was a smoker got cancer I would never stand around self righteously proclaiming it to be their fault... I was just thinking about how there is so little funding for so many issues in the NHS & a lot of the time people who really need it can't get the help they need, let alone the people who should in theory know better who are ruining their own lives. It is a tough subject & a good debate, and as someone said it isn't the job of health care professionals to make judgement calls like that...

Now there's a U turn right there. ^


What happens if I decide on any risky endeavour for sport, and I break my wrist boxing or my leg skiing. Am I to be refused state treatment because it was my choice to risk myself so? Our whole lives are risks. So where do we draw the line on 'self-inflicted' injuries? How many of us are going to require medical treatment in the future for things WE opted to do? Treatment I've been paying for all my bloody working life (everyday since I left school) I might add.
As far as refusing a child treatment because of the decisions or prejudices of their parents is sick. Really sick. We let kids die because they're parents decided not to immunise?
Do we just say "bet you won't do that again" as they bury their child?
Seriously WTF?!!?!
I'm actually curious to see, of those who have piped up on this subject, how many actually have kids and had to make this decision. Because, for me, it wasn't easy. I've 2 children, and I'd be lying if I said we didn't hesitate, because we did. And that's not because we're some kind of ill-educated, feckless, selfish and self-centred idiots who don't care for our kids. It's because we do care for them, that we hesitated. No decision like this is easy, and while we did it eventually, I didn't have any negative feelings towards those parents who decided against it. I would NEVER presume to tell people how to behave when it comes to their kids and something like this.
Here's me thinking this site was filled with liberal, free-thinking lefties. It all just stinks of the daily mail to me.


Holier than thou people are messing with my groove.

This post has been edited by Solidsnape: 27 March 2014 - 08:07 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

Not a u turn man. An admission that I am flawed and that I maybe need to be more like Christ than I am. I'm acknowledging points made that show my thinking to be quite nasty & un-Christian. I am striving to be a better person!

I said something not good, especially based on the faith I profess & Illy called me out on it.

Edit: spelling

This post has been edited by Tiste Brent Not Abyss Weeks Simeon: 27 March 2014 - 08:04 AM

[Aptorian]

It always annoys me when people expect Christians to be perfect.

I'm an atheist but I have nothing against Christianity as a life philosophy and a set of virtues or goals.

Being a better person is something everyone should strive for, even a near perfect human being like myself, but nobody is perfect. Nobody is ever going to be perfect. Expecting a Christian person to only ever do or say things that live up to the highest ideals of Jesus or God is fool hardy. The whole notion of the faith is that we are flawed and only through devotion to the faith can one become a better person. Better, not perfect.

Not to mention that you can't follow every word and action in the Bible without creating some serious paradoxes.

Also, why on earth would you hesitate to get a child vacinated? (that doesn't think Jenny McCarthy should be thrown off a cliff) If you've ever seen somebody who had polio as a child you'd get that kid vaccinated so fast they'd look like a pincushion.

This post has been edited by Apt Hoc: 27 March 2014 - 08:20 AM

[Gothos]

Apt Hoc, on 27 March 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

Not to mention that you can't follow every word and action in the Bible without creating some serious paradoxes.

Or getting arrested.

[Solidsnape]

Apt Hoc, on 27 March 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

It always annoys me when people expect Christians to be perfect.

I'm an atheist but I have nothing against Christianity as a life philosophy and a set of virtues or goals.

Being a better person is something everyone should strive for, even a near perfect human being like myself, but nobody is perfect. Nobody is ever going to be perfect. Expecting a Christian person to only ever do or say things that live up to the highest ideals of Jesus or God is fool hardy. The whole notion of the faith is that we are flawed and only through devotion to the faith can one become a better person. Better, not perfect.

Not to mention that you can't follow every word and action in the Bible without creating some serious paradoxes.

Also, why on earth would you hesitate to get a child vacinated?

Because my partners sister is autistic.
Before you go all "OMG" on my ass, I happen to agree with Illy on the fact that the guy who spouted that shit should be hung up by his testicles. However that does not take away my mother-in-laws opinion, however ill-informed that opinion may be, that the MMR was somehow responsible. That opinion will inevitably filter down, until sufficient seed is planted in my girlfriends head on the matter.
So while I was more or less completely in favour of vaccination before hand, I now have a girlfriend in a heightened emotional state, having just gave birth to a perfectly healthy son, beginning to worry about the MMR. For genuine reasons. Not because she wanted our kid to grow up with polio! But because she didn't want to risk, (however non-existent or irrational that risk may be) what happened to her sister.
Now I'm the first to admit that women don't My girlfriend doesn't* think rationally at the best of times, not least when theirHER*recently birthed first born is involved. So why would she now?
At the end of the day, I'm not saying we weren't going to immunise, just that it's hard not to have ANY reservations when dealing with this kind of thing.

I'm not saying you shouldn't hate anti-vaxxers, I'm just saying that I don't. I certainly don't harbour any ill feeling towards them, providing their objections were from concern and not laziness or indifference (obviously that will happen, and I'm not defending those people).
However, I can and will hate people who seem to think that
Children who haven't been vaccinated should be punished and blamed for their parents inaction. However well meant.
I'm not aware of any 2 year old kids who decide for themselves whether or not to be given the MMR.
So easy to be judgemental when you haven't faced the decision in question yourself.

*EDITED FOR LESS SEXISM

This post has been edited by Solidsnape: 27 March 2014 - 10:20 AM

[Gothos]

Their objections stem from wilful ignorance, not concern. There's more to support the validity of vaccines than baptism (and hey just how many autistic children have been baptised? maybe it's the baptism!), yet do you see a mob of anti-baptism hatemongers? Not really.
It is laziness, but a laziness of mind - is it that much of an effort to research the term "correlation does not imply causation"? And just how many of those people just got caught by the idea, started shouting it and now are just too proud to admit they were wrong to do so?

[Studlock]

Why would ever admit to the belief that women don't think rationally at the best of times and reveal your true nature as a 1950s super dad?

But seriously I'm with on the whole lets not punish the children for the actions of their parents, not some much on the little sexist hickup there (also not with you on the anti-vaxxers, get your children vaccinated, it doesn't cause autism, and if your child has autism embrace it, it's a perfectly valid life to live...and you should probably reflect upon your opinion of women's ability to rational because I know many of a women scientist who could explain to you the exact science of why vaccinations will not give your children autism)

My groove has been messed in the messing with your groove thread, it's the perfect loop. It is paradise.

[Solidsnape]

Less of the '"1950's" please.

[Imperial Historian]

Regarding vaccination, the possible side effects of some vaccines can be pretty horrific, but in all cases I know of the risks of the disease are usually much much worse (and we are usually talking 1 in 100000 or less for anything approaching serious side effects, especially for the govt recommended ones).

Regarding taxes on smoking and alcohol, I think the logic on that should be extended further to extremely fatty foods and other risky activities that result in significant impacts on the NHS budget (even as regressive as such taxes would inevitably be). But I don't think we should ever refuse healthcare or other services because someone undertakes a risky activity.

[Tattersail_]

Tapper, on 08 March 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Am looking for Twelve, who had a flight to Amsterdam (with a 5 hour delay) I sincerely think we missed him as he landed 40 minutes ago. But no phone contact possible and I am not sure he can read his mail..

I wish I had seen this. I do not normally check this thread.

It all worked out in the end.

[Gothos]

Imperial Historian, on 27 March 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Regarding vaccination, the possible side effects of some vaccines can be pretty horrific, but in all cases I know of the risks of the disease are usually much much worse (and we are usually talking 1 in 100000 or less for anything approaching serious side effects, especially for the govt recommended ones).

Regarding taxes on smoking and alcohol, I think the logic on that should be extended further to extremely fatty foods and other risky activities that result in significant impacts on the NHS budget (even as regressive as such taxes would inevitably be). But I don't think we should ever refuse healthcare or other services because someone undertakes a risky activity.

NOOOOO I like my burgers cheap-ish. And pizza. And kebab (though lately I've become rather reluctant, REMOVE KEBAB! ). And crisps. And chips. And coke. And...

[Tiste Simeon]

There is no tax on alcohol if you buy it from the guy behind the market with the unmarked white van known only as "Big Dave"

[Studlock]

There is no tax on alcohol if you own a bathtub and wash at the local swimming hole

[Tattersail_]

HHD it frees up your time to play mafia again

It will all work out for you, your fun, young and beautiful.

My wife has a group of friends. One of them is married to a complete arse. I could not list the amount of things he does wrong. Yet they are always invited to social gatherings, they would never ask her to leave him or give her a hard time, she loves who she loves and that's it. It's none of her friends' business truly. A friend should offer support and love unconditionally. I never comment on these things. I hate arguing and writing big essays and that is what it would be if I had to go in to detail.

Nothing is messing with my groove.

Okay maybe tickling it a bit is the solicitors that are dealing with our buying of a house. Its a tedious process.

[Gothos]

You're BUYING a HOUSE. I'd say things are going pretty good for you.